As a Former Death Penalty Proponent

With a botched execution in Ohio Oklahoma [thanks Mike], the death penalty was a hot topic again, at least for a few days. I used to believe in the death penalty, but somewhere along the line I changed my mind and decided that the disadvantages outweigh any advantages.

I have no real moral objection to the death penalty; my arguments against it are practical (although we could debate whether accidentally executing an innocent person is a practical or a moral issue. I suppose the innocent person would want to argue both.)

Following are the arguments that did, and did not, sway me.

Arguments that did not work for me

We Don't Have the Right

It seems to be a common feeling among death penalty opponents that we should just never pronounce this ultimate judgment on anyone, that it is barbaric, morally repugnant. While I understand the sentiment, I just disagree, and there is not much you can say to demonstrate that I am objectively wrong. It is very likely that nearly anyone who supports the death penalty has already resolved this issue for themselves and has gotten past any moral objections.

My example for this question is Timothy McVeigh. He killed civilians and children, 168 people in all. You don't think we should say that he forfeited his right to live? You are a kinder soul than I am. I'm glad he's dead. I feel fine with that. I doubt you can change me.

It Impacts the Poor and Minorities Unfairly

So do drug laws and probably almost every crime from DUI to armed robbery to rape to murder. This is an indictment of the American justice system, where the wealthy can purchase "better" justice for themselves. It is not a problem unique to the death penalty. If we can level the playing field such that the courts don't discriminate against those with less money, great, but the problem is not caused by the death penalty.

It's Cruel

Perhaps I need to educate myself, but why can't we kill people cleanly? We euthanize animals humanely, and we even have assisted suicide. Is there no way to execute someone without torturing them?

The human brain shuts off after just a few seconds without blood flow, so why is it cruel to use a firing squad? Guillotines are messy, but are they cruel? What about hanging - snap the neck and it's over. I can think of a dozen other ways (drop a boulder on their head) that seem like they would be quick, if not 100% painless. So a painful execution just seems like a question of incompetence, not cruelty.

Arguments that changed my mind

We will execute innocent people

Not surprisingly, this is the main problem that resonated with me. There will always be mistakes, but beyond that, if you give this weapon to every district attorney and police force in the country, someone somewhere will abuse it. It's easy enough to say that we should only execute someone if he or she is really, truly guilty, for sure. Unfortunately, that isn't how our justice system works. And unlike any other sentence that may be given to a defendant, this one cannot be reversed or mitigated once it is carried out.

For anyone who thinks that the death penalty is a great thing that is administered fairly, I would strong recommend the movie The Thin Blue Line. (Actually I recommend it for anyone -- it's great.) The film is a documentary about a man sentenced to death for murdering a policeman in Dallas, Texas. This case is one where I believe the death penalty could be justified -- for the prosecutor, police, possibly one expert witness and a judge who conspired to convict and sentence to death a man whom they had to have realized was very obviously innocent. The defendant might have been executed in time if not for the movie being made. This movie leaves little doubt that not everyone we execute is guilty.

So the conviction of innocent defendants is clearly the biggest downside of capital punishment, but not just because of mistakes. It also matters that we cannot completely control who in law enforcement is given this weapon, and that they are using it in a manner that we would think appropriate. You have to envision the worst scenario.

The Cost

It costs a lot to execute someone. This is because of the previous concern: We really want to be sure that anyone we execute is competent enough to be responsible for their actions, and that they were definitely guilty, and so, quite rightly, we have an extensive process to review death penalty cases, and it costs more than holding a prisoner for life. Which brings us to the next point...

Why?

It has been well established that the death penalty is not a more effective deterrent to committing crimes than life imprisonment, so why do we need it? I wrote above that I am glad Timothy McVeigh is dead. On the other hand, Charles Manson has been in prison for more than 40 years, and I'm fine with that too. The two punishments are more or less the same to me; both are severe punishments for severe crimes, and both take the guilty parties off the streets. I'm not sure why the world would be a better place with Charles Manson dead instead of stuck in prison, so why waste money executing him?

If I were a death penalty activist, those are the three arguments I would bring out over and over: executing the innocent, the cost, and what are we achieving? I suspect that those arguments will work better than trying to convince anyone that capital punishment is inhumane.